LAUSR

Resolving issues posed by our paper describing the late antiquity glass from Jelica (Serbia), we performed a thorough analysis of similar glass, systematically collected from the literature. The analysis showed that Foy 3.2 type evolved gradually from a composition similar to the Roman antimony-decolorized glass to a composition approaching Foy 2.1, lasting longer (second−seventh century AD) and spreading wider than originally described, including large parts of the Balkans, France interior, Germany, and Britain. The center of its distribution seems to be the Balkans and Italy. During the sixth century, Foy 3.2 glasses in the Balkans showed a significant increase of average MgO concentration compared to the earlier period and Foy 3.2 glasses outside the Balkans, implying different sand quarries and perhaps different trade routes for its imports. Recycling criteria for Foy 3.2 glass has been established. Similarly, 125 high-iron Foy 2.1 glasses are selected from the literature. They cluster within two groups regarding iron concentrations, which we term high iron (HI) and very high iron (VHI) Foy 2.1. In addition, there is a low lime subgroup of the VHI group, termed VHILL. The paper offers two possible explanations for the elevated iron, color branding, and different silica sources. High-iron glasses seem relatively evenly spread across the entire Mediterranean and its interior, representing, on average, around a quarter of the local Foy 2.1 assemblages. The percentages of high-iron samples are almost double in manufactured glass compared to raw glass, suggesting that the addition of iron was happening in the secondary workshops, i.e., for color branding. Among the manufactured glass, the proportions were higher in glassware than in windowpane glass. To capture the changing sand exploitation conditions, we propose the term “generic composition/type” or “(geochemical) class”.